Search results:

Share:

As Design Academy Eindhoven searches for yet another creative director, a group of alumni is urging the school to make a choice that enhances the influential school's creativity, rather than its business model. Former student Jules van den Langenberg explains why.

Design Academy Eindhoven has been without a leader for seven months, since its former creative director stepped down in October 2016 after resigning in June earlier that year. The situation makes for an urgent reflection on the limitations of the Dutch school and the future of design education. Simply put: can the Design Academy give rise to a new avant-garde?

One of the most important incubators for design, arts and architecture of the last century was Black Mountain College in North Carolina, USA. The school prioritised an interdisciplinary arts education as central, but also strove for self-sufficiency with both students and faculty working together on the farm, in the kitchen and on construction projects.

In the 1940s and 1950s, the educational institute attracted teachers such as Josef and Anni Albers, Buckminster Fuller, Walter Gropius, while graduates included John Cage, Robert Rauschenberg and Cy Twombly. The communal responsibility to develop the curriculum and the school in general led to a conducive learning environment that would give rise to many of the 20th-century pioneers that revolutionised modern art.

The situation makes for an urgent reflection on the limitations of the Dutch school

The contrast between Black Mountain College and today's design schools, such as Design Academy Eindhoven, is stark. The increasing corporatisation of tertiary education and the commodification of qualifications is leaving less room for students and faculty to develop and stage distinctive creativity, personal growth and radical innovation. While these financial and management limitations are not unique to design education, what is at stake when it comes to design and creativity is the very skill that differentiates human intelligence from artificial intelligence.

What has preserved some degree of creative autonomy for students and teachers of Design Academy Eindhoven up until now is that it has not been led by a manager, nor an education specialist. Steering the institute and challenging department heads has always been a creative and cultural figure. It makes all the difference and is something we need to evolve.

One of the biggest controversies in the academy's recent past was when that creative control was threatened and the school was put into the hands of a manager. In 2012, all heads of the master departments resigned in response to the educational reform in which power over admissions and course content would shift from the heads of the masters programmes to management figures such as the school's dean of education.

What is at stake when it comes to design and creativity is the very skill that differentiates human intelligence from artificial intelligence

However, there is little room for nostalgia. In progressive colleges, the question of governance and structure is always more intense. From my perspective as an alumni, the search for the future of design education at the Eindhoven-based school began in 2008. I entered Design Academy Eindhoven as a first-year student with an opening speech by Lidewij Edelkoort, met Alexander van Slobbe the year after, presented work to Annemieke Eggenkamp during my third year, and left the school in the first graduation show directed by Thomas Widdershoven.

This brisk succession race brings to mind the origins of the saying "The king is dead, long live the king", which was coined in order to prevent civil war erupting over who the successor would be. No time was ever allowed to reflect or rethink before the next king took to the throne.

In the case of Design Academy Eindhoven, the hasty transfer of power from one freely elected creative director to the next meant that the world kept turning but the development of the academy as an institute froze. This could be seen as a case of "The Design Academy is Dead. Long live the Design Academy".

What is the bigger issue in the published vacancy, which can be seen as exemplary of the culture of the people and system currently governing the school, is the amount of time and level of influence that the new director will operate. The academy requests a visionary approach and long-term commitment, yet initially allots only one or two days per week (paid 20 per cent full-time) for such a role. That amount, especially at the beginning of the job, seems unrealistic given the goals.

Furthermore, Design Academy Eindhoven is a layered institute; currently, the creative director is meant to work with an educational director in an executive board that steers and controls the curriculum. Each department has a head, coordinator and tutors that collectively form a self-steering organisation. The structure of meetings within the academy ensures regular contact between tutors, coordinators and heads of the various departments. The supervisory board is legally required and independently appointed to oversee the executive board: they appoint its members and approve its budget. There is always friction between the demands of education and official policy, and the freedom and vision of creativity. The school thrives off that friction, but it is not easy. The creative director has to be strong, determined, willing and able to stand up to that battle, while allowing the school to flourish and not sink from it.

There is always friction between the demands of education and official policy, and the freedom and vision of creativity

As part of the alumni of the academy, the future of this Dutch school concerns me greatly. For this reason, I initiated a gathering in January involving graduates from the years 1996 to 2016 to frame our knowledge as a key contribution to the process of electing a new creative director. Recent graduates participated, as did a those with a longer track record, such as Atelier NL, Formafantasma and Chris Kabel.

The transcript of the alumni discussion was presented to the chair and secretary of the supervisory board, as well as the student council. They gratefully accepted our text and, only after we requested a more substantial response, informed us simply that the board took the information into consideration while creating the vacancy profile.

Alumni are a key element of the academy and its position. The gathering was an opportunity in which our knowledge and opinions could alter the established ways of thinking within its governors and attract relevant candidates for the vacancy. The possible candidates brought up during the gathering, in alphabetical order, were: Paola Antonelli, Jurgen Bey and Rianne Makkink, Jan Boelen, Ole Bouman, Alastair Fuad Luke, Joseph Grima, Hella Jongerius, Alice Rawsthorn, Thomas Rau, Job Smeets and Jan Tichelaar.

Since no further engagement was possible with the supervisory board and the process, we have independently solicited contributions to a discussion around these questions of what design education should be, and what role the leader of a design school should play in realising that vision. My hope is that the alumni gathering and this publication will contribute to the search and appointing of a new creative director, by informing possible candidates and the selection committee.

If anything, it has been a labour of love and the start of a larger debate on design education and the involvement of alumni in the further development of Design Academy Eindhoven.

There is one week left before the application date closes. I hereby invite Dezeen readers, students, teachers,
stakeholders of design education and a professional audience to publish their constructive opinions in the comment section. This public library could prove to be insightful for the selection committee of the academy. I am confident that all discussions will help to inform candidates beyond just the job advertisement.

Comments

Hallo Jules, I'm sending you some notes on what I think should be done, and how I see the role of chairperson progressing. Hope the formidable DAE will get the candidate they deserve. Thanks for inviting me! Lidewij

For me, the most important goal is the student, his life and experience and the way we work with students even after graduation. I value the importance of alumni. All decisions need to be taken from the student perspective. The director should listen to the students and their work, changing needs and aspirations. Our ear and eye need to be alert to spot changing attitudes, even when minor. Education is like sailing and innovation needs to be following the directions of the wind(s).

As always we need to look at the far future to be able to prepare students on what they will need to be able to practice and how to enjoy the design processes. Even when they don’t know it yet themselves.

In my view, the most important challenge for the future is how do we hold on to HUMANITY. Faced with data moving in on us and algorithms mastering every detail of our existence, robots replacing our role in labour and computers outsmarting human intelligence I believe that we have to fight for our existence as if we were ENDANGERED SPECIES. Possibly we already are on our way to extinction.

Therefore the circle system of the DAE which places man in the middle is more than crucial and needs to be restored, rekindled and reinvented, maybe renaming it with the word HUMAN instead of man which is too gender specific for a fluid future.

Thus HUMAN (and) food and HUMAN (and) identity etc could be the way to go. This need for a re-humanisation of society will shift the focus in design and high-tech industries on less innovation and more human processes, modifying the scenarios for the future away from growth and greed to another plausible. sustainable model.

Seen from afar and instructed by setting up other schools and learning programs I would create new divisions and at the same time kindle new coherence and hybrid learning, across the spectrum of programs. I would free the students to navigate the departments and “shop” for whatever interests them and encourage and enable their graduation.

The future will make us more nomadic, more global (while still anchored in the local), more flexible, more fluid, more transformers than form givers. This will request a designer able to improvise and invent new ideas almost constantly, more like a flow than one finished idea. Anticipating a relationship with the public or the consumer that is based on mutual interest and trust, even on the long term with the designer filling in needs and requests. The learning, therefore, needs to challenge this ability to constantly transform and translate, to transverse given ideas also. Certainly the designer of the future needs to be anchored to be able to move freely and seek expansion of his own knowledge and character, yet first of all, he needs to be fully HUMAN to serve society. Therefore the studies of anthropology and philosophy will be demanded within the design processes. Constant challenges and projects could help the student body to express and transgress the borders of their own interest into a more common objective. It is all about us.

The future is hybrid and will demand multi-disciplinary learning programs in which the humanities, design, sciences, expression and an entrepreneurial spirit will come together. More and more we will learn how to live and work together, in cooperative modules, therefore the education needs to become more generous and open, less focused on the individual, building the group or the extended family. Inventing a new economic model becomes urgent. Toward a society made on a different, more HUMAN scale.

Certainly one of the new departments needs to be seen as HUMAN expression and needs to deal with the stage, film, acting, dance, mime and all skills one needs to imagine HUMANITY. This department would become hugely successful since design and the stage will merge into one new solid domain.

In this light of being HUMAN, it is vital to restructure the idea of industrial design, rethink its importance (there will be a revival) and completely change the parameters of making. The designer becomes co-producer, co-editor, possibly even co-financer…we need to be able to deliver those skills. Eventually on a Master level.

Another very important topic is the revival of textiles, where the high-tech and biotech aspects converge with the slow craft movements, to make this domain super HUMAN. Textiles will clothe, hide, defend, restructure, live, compute, built and might become the first discipline of the 21-st century, including the revival of textiles in art. Which opens the question of art…

In my mind, there is no question about the place of art and autonomous design within the education of the DAE. Here again, the borders are blurring and will allow us to educate a small number of self-expressive students or student teams.

In general, I believe that we need to teach more writing (including poetry) since I see the emergence of words as design. The first year of study should be a roller coaster type introduction to design and all other expressions, so that students will be more apt to choose their departments (at least two or more hopefully). The following years the teaching needs to be hyper-challenging, caring for the students in a constantly changing configuration. DAE-wide questions and themes will give some consistency in these madhouse experiences.

Departments should be more autonomous and should have their own budgets, do their own organisation and design their own strategy, within a framework which is decided upon jointly. They should finally become faculty in fact. With faculty the DAE needs to script their courses more carefully and also deliver on student outcomes, consistent with what design universities require. Which opens up the question of the university…

Without further due the DAE needs to acquire university status, as all design schools are in the process of doing, to guarantee an international student influx this simply needs to happen. This would also contribute to a better research component, which has always been a weak point that needs to be addressed since research will become a design discipline all by itself.

As for the promotion of the institute, it is no longer Milan which is the place to be. For purposes of promoting autonomous design and industrial design, it is still an important meeting place and a presence of integrity needs to be organised on a smaller more intimate and curated scale. Yet all other speaking/meeting/lecturing/performing presentations are simply a waste of money. Milan doesn’t have that type of visitor. Therefore a portfolio of places needs to be created with theatres and museums in several countries, as well as a strong presence on-line. Notably, a presence in the Southern Hemisphere makes a lot of sense since new talent will start to flow from these regions, future students of the school.

Finally and very important in view of the HUMAN component I would like to suggest that more depth, respect and integrity need to be born to make the teachings more spiritual and possibly even at times shamanistic, in order to feel the soul in design and the living essence of matter. New Materialism as a philosophy will guide the future of material design and making.

Thank you for sharing your inspiring thoughts! I would like Jules van den Langenberg and/or Lidewij Edelkoort (perhaps as a duo or team) to apply for the job. The academy needs passionate people on board with the rare talent to direct enough to bring creativity to a professional level, although creating enough space for new methods, perspectives and technologies to arise.

For taking designs around humanistic values seriously, the academy should invest in getting experts on board in neurology, choreography, anthropology, programming, engineering and psychology. Attending lectures at Tilburg University and TU Eindhoven would be a good way to start. When an ecology with also DAE in Eindhoven is created (start-ups, educational exchange with High Tech Campus, ASML and Brainport), we could actually create highly fertile soil for shaping a human-based though technological daily environment, competing with the non-human driven current tech designs that overrule our daily lives these days.

DAE should educate sensor technology equally to how it's educating colours and ceramics. Otherwise its excluding itself from its own future. Make it possible for students to design with hacking as much as practising shamanism. Because being human is being holistic. And so should design education be: inclusive.

Judith Wehmeyer Vd Boom

What Lidewij is saying is exactly what we have been doing for the last years in our department. We have viewed our department as a studio and laboratory and a place to experiment, in regard to time, generation, materials, thinking and doing in many formats. Learning is about processes and so should be education Our bachelor is never finished; we are in a constant transit and embracing it's vulnerability. Don't fix yourself in models towards success or stability, but teach students to find a firm ground in themselves. What Lidewij says above are lot of elements we have set up in the last years.

It's about deep passion for our changing world and opening new space for rethinking, redoing and rewiring our notion and definition of design. Beside the concerns we have about design education it's in itself the challenge that we can initiate change and move forward more together, stepping down from solist thinking to new generative doing. Thinking not from the perspective of Holland towards the world but changing the skin and character of change and meaning of learning.

I've studied at the design academy, ArtEZ and the RCA and been teaching in academies around the world, and it's really important to step away from what one might define as truth and a way and broadening our our perceptions. Dutch "design" is suffocating itself; meanwhile, all is right in front of us to change this! Stop thinking in borders but in new forms of placeness. http://www.productdesignarnhem.com/#about

Great to hear from Judith from the design department of ArtEZ Arnhem which has been going strong for ages. It never performed so much in the limelight as DAE but it has graduates varying from Marcel Wanders to me ;-).

Education is about raising students to become experts in their field. For design this means: developing graduates with playful and critical minds, that know about all kinds of making-processes, that are highly aware of the times we live in and respond to that. Education itself does not have to take place in the spotlight. Most important is that students get fed well and that someone steers the ship with a vision on this.

Design has also been known as 'applied arts' and I think the struggle for (Dutch) design in the next years will be to deal with the word applied again. We are entering a time where designers seriously need to think about what they add to this world. A time where just playing and showing stylish or artistic experiments for the sake of it is not good enough. The additional desire for 'true meaningfulness' will raise the bar for design even more.

This asks for a deep understanding and knowledge of our society, human needs and behaviour. Indeed anthropology and psychology, philosophy and semantics (the last two are educated in Arnhem for 30 years) are important to learn from in order to reflect on our future moves. Consequently designers might have to settle with a more modest role for themselves, provide most of all: excellent products and ideas and less ego. Perhaps that is the bitter pill that DAE has to get to terms with, but I am sure a new captain will get on board that understands this.

To be able to meet a common ground should benefit both students and the academy as every creative project is a collaborative process. New innovations and techniques are always brought to the table if the student expands into areas of expertise for further learning. Introducing new technologies should be presented in a way to attract the attention of the student and cause a spark of interest which will allow both students and lecturers to create a sense of direction for progression and to deliver a solid platform. A big personality is needed to be able to perform and deliver the best for the academy and expand its full potential.

Klara Nilsson

I was a student at DAE between 2006 and 2009 and I too had the benefit of starting with the inspiring talk by Lidewij, and I'm very flattered that I can take part in this conversation.

As many others I have since then become more impressed by the depth and importance of what I actually got from this curriculum. How different this was and is. How necessary.

That is why to me it was saddening that with all the innovative way of creating design that DAE is so well known for, the school put so much effort into creating artefacts and objects for galleries. Meanwhile, the power of creating the world lies behind software where humanity, poetry, curiosity, and even diversity is still scarce.

I find great hope in Lidewij's comment about a collaborative curriculum. I would love to see the design world, especially DAE, step up and innovate together with other industries. Even though the tech industry has a lot of problems (really a lot) it starts to understand that creating great software is not about having the best programmers, but the best collaborations. Please come here!

As an alumna from DAE I can see that working closely in smaller arenas is so tempting. After all, when did we ever visit TU/e? But how will that alter the bigger picture that we live in, right now? Should we really leave the the bigger arenas and set hope to smaller curated places, created with like-minded people? Who will join us there and what will be innovative by doing so?
Will we meet any others than the already inclined?

I think it sends a very elitist message, to be honest. I wonder how "avant-garde" it really is to need a "cultural figure" that leads the design school? In Stockholm we have a trend with IT managers that are not tech, yes even designers. Would a tech-person as head for DAE be that bad?

I too was first horrified when shifting the admissions to people that are not trained creatives. But really. Most people are not chemist when they go to the university but many do leave as one. And as a school, DAE possibly did not put the most effort on the students with a different background that entered? I think a bit of reflection can be done as to what "inclusive" really means to each of us.

There is huge mistrust of design and frankly I feel we are a big part of that. Can we change this now? We are a part of the "creative class" – a small group that a large part of the world is hating right now. We need to be mindful about this.

As a consultant for larger corporations, I'm often met with suspicion. Colleagues that think I will look down on them because they "do not know design". They are embarrassed! For not having that "nice education" and background that I – and most –
people in the creative world have. They often think they cannot take part in the creative process at all because of this. Isn't that sad? Is this fruitful for collaborations? I had colleagues half-excusing themselves for feeling creative while coding! And a lot of designers are actually fine with keeping "them" out of the process, even happy! What do we as designers really mean by the word "collaborate"? The distances between people grow with this and it breaks my heart.

Just as in any large organisation, the individualistic approach merits short-sighted efforts, shallow ideas and creates cultures of rivalry, not collaboration. And DAE is no different. Rivalry is what kills innovation and creativity. And people. I wonder what this rivalry is about – why are we even suppose to "compete"? Is this what we as designers want to contribute with?

With admissions with months of creative work just to enter and the competition that comes with it, DAE too upholds this idea of a divine talent. To be able to create together, on equal terms, we really need to reflect on this. The new director needs to be clear on what to achieve with the school and the students that joins. So that we don't make matters worse.

Lets do this now! It will be awesome! <3 I think it would be a fantastic start if DAE would start a conversation with other schools on and even companies on how design thinking and engineer thinking can benefit and innovate together.

I hope that every school starts to think about where the individuals will be after graduation, not only DAE. I hope the innovation, poetry and storytelling of DAE will spread, not just as objects in galleries but as part of other industries that is altering the world as we speak.

Howabouthat

"It is generally accepted that competition results in lower prices and a greater number of goods delivered to more people. Less competition is perceived to result in higher prices with a fewer number of—and less innovation in—goods delivered to fewer people" – every economic law ever

All this idealistic, utopian bullcrap I read of people who don't understand the basic mechanisms of this world. It's good to be idealistic, but it's also good to be informed and realistic. Especially in times like these. In my eyes the biggest factor resulting in misfits of designers.

Klara Nilsson

Bullcrap? Collaboration with others is bullcrap? I think the very essence of what I read here is that DAE-students should work together with other disciplines. How do you propose that should be done?

Informed and realistic is to see what is not working and try something different. Tech does this. If that is not part of this world then I don't know what we are actually discussing here :)

Also, calling things Bullcrap is, well, not really on the level I usually talk to anyone. Maybe a dialogue is not really what you are looking for?

catchmeoutsidehowaboutthat

There was no mentioning of the word collaboration at any point. You initially "despised" competition, thus the comment. Collaboration is obviously necessary and beneficial.

Still though DAE should educate individuals with personal, strong opinions. at times with even egoistic ideas and ideals in order to create not all-agreeing, braindead collaborators but strong individual thinkers able to collaborate (if wanted). Competition within collaboration is vital. to bring it to a cheesy conclusion. How else to create progressive results based on actual consensus?

And concerning the tech part, yes tech is good and needed but the world doesn't resolve only around tech. Make it a department, not the world.

I for my taste would like to continuously see tasteful, in it's own way inventive, avant-garde and seemingly non-needed furniture. Because the world isn't about saving the world every god damn minute, sometimes it's just about the moment of appreciation for the history of a profound object.

Klara Nilsson

It's your choice to live in perception of the world. I just happen to see something different and that is what I believe DAE needs better, judging from the state of things. From your tone and wording I can't really care less what your aim is with this.

Marco Bevolo

As both fields of design and education will radically change, DAE must exit their comfort zone of vernacular formats, embracing a new world where technology raises as many challenges as populism does. Most of all, the DesignArt convergence of market design and fine arts circuits did polarize design work in actual fine arts (where signature is key, and where DAE operated since Edelkoort), whereas digital crafts enable the emergence of “design beyond designers” (where everybody is a maker, and therefore no DAE is needed). As a result, DAE is at risk of becoming educationally irrelevant and culturally mannerist. In order to do so, both the power of new technologies, through industrial partnerships with IoT and digital leaders, as well as the power of humanities, psychoanalysis and social sciences will be injected into the lifeline of DAE.

As higher professional education is currently in a large public debate in The Netherlands, it is a necessity to redefine and reframe the role of DAE in terms of both “applied” practices as well as “Bildung”. It becomes vital, for DAE, to reframe its educational portfolio at the two extremes of skills and competence, as well as at the level of the great ideas and philosophical dilemmas that articulate our current age. This requires opening up to new practices, from journalism to the praxis of critical thinking, applied to creative processes, beyond simplified concepting.

Lastly, as featured on ED, there are clear signs that the entire “Eindhoven model” might be soon under scrutiny due to gentrification and to the functioning (or absence) of venture capitalists or other forms of funding, hence demanding DAE to take a fresh view not only at its international status, but also at its local presence, its networking practices and stakeholder management.

Prof. Patrick Gottelier

DAE has been one of the most significant design schools since Bauhaus, but to ask the question "can the Design Academy give rise to a new avant-garde?" is, I believe, misleading.

Lidewij Edelkoort and colleagues created an environment of enquiry, critical thinking, problem solving, risk taking and courage. These elements resonated with design professionals and academics around the world, attracting teachers and
students who were not prepared to settle for less ambitious environments.

Whilst a learning environment is successfully focused on exploring core values, it may over time earn the descriptor "avant-garde". The danger lies in administrative management aspiring for the sobriquet "avant-garde" without accepting the need
for, or being prepared to accept, the risk.

The new leader(s) will need to be visionary, diplomatic and determined. The supervisory board will need to display unprecedented courage. I wish them every success – we all need them to be successful.

Boris

Not the academy staff but the students lead to "the fall" of the academy with their ambition to become "the new avant-garde" and the new design superstars in stead of good designers who make relevant work.

Prof. Patrick Gottelier

Do I understand that by this you hold the students responsible for 'the fall' of DAE?

Emphatically not – If students are ambitious solely to become design superstars – what of academic leadership? Certainly, there has been an increasing tendency toward finding the shortest route to notoriety but it is the academy leadership and staff who are responsible for ensuring quality and relevance.

Wellwellwell

Avant-garde is meant to be, in its own sense, "good" design, isn't it? At least if you believe in progress whatsoever.

Michael Teich

Why should I give a flying f* about anything in this article? What I want to know is what my profession's stance is on the corporate takeover of the building industry. I want to know what my peers intend to do about our dying planet. I want to know why the majority of architecture has no redeeming values for humanity. I want to know why egoism and narcissism appear to be the key factors in deciding what gets built and who gets to build it.

I don't give a f* about Design Academy Eindhoven and neither should you. This debate, like most debates I have read about in recent years, is nothing but a diversion to take our minds away from the real questions. What good do architects provide to humanity at large? Do we just talk the talk while Rome burns? WTF does avant garde have to do with anything that concerns you or I? I say that this is a perfect example of what we designers are the best at: intellectual masturbation. No more, no less.

Jâson Page

You have the choice not to care about this article in the same way that you have the choice not to leave this comment on any article you don't agree with.

Conor Trawinski

There is no point at shouting at the system. Nobody will take your opinions seriously if you communicate them aggressively and use f* in every second sentence.

You might realise that influencing a decision for the creative director of any design education institute can address the very issues you are pointing to.

Change is a slow process, and appointing the right people in a powerful position will influence how student designers will work and think in the future. This is the whole reason for this discussion.

asnate

In order to achieve excellence, the DAE has always encouraged its students to be bold: to approach and discuss any question openly without any taboos.

I encourage the DAE to be bold itself, and follow the mindset it taught to its students while carrying out this important task of finding a new head and defining the future for itself.

Sander Manse

For me it feels strange to discuss this issue (so specific to DAE) on this platform, but I do see the relevance of some issues in relationship to a broader debate about design education and the role of design schools within this debate. When discussing the process of appointing a creative director, I don't think it is very constructive to name specific possible candidates or to try to influence the selection process itself, but it does make sense to initiate a discussion (involving students, teachers, alumni) about the role of such a director. How does a creative director operate in 2017, and the many years to come? How do we educate people for jobs that do not yet exist?

Furthermore I would like to react on a short passage from Lidewij Edelkort's comment, which does not necessarily relate to the DAE/director debate, but it touches upon an important aspect of the future of the school:

"This need for a re-humanisation of society will shift the focus in design and high-tech industries on less innovation and more human processes, modifying the scenarios for the future away from growth and greed to another plausible. sustainable model."

Although I understand and sympathise with the underlying sentiment in this short quote, inducing a more social and inclusive society, I think calling for 'less innovation' and turning away from high tech industries will be a final blow for an institute like DAE. It is time to embrace technological innovation as a key agent for (social) change.

The signature material-driven approach of the DAE provides such an interesting angle to research these topics, so I don't see any reason to shift away from the high tech. I agree with Govert Flint's comment below – when DAE does not stimulate research into high-end technological developments like sensor technology, artificial intelligence or new media, it is excluding itself from the future.

jeroen

About DAEsign. A strange thing happened in the past thirty years, design is not a verb anymore, but it has become a 'thing'.

In the period Lidewij Edelkoort led the academy in Eindhoven, she has transformed design into a kind of modern folklore. Many 'dutch DAEsign' products of the recent decades merely are a kind of fairytale. Fairytales entertain people. People nowadays want to pay well for entertainment. Wrapped up in a jacket of 'lifestyle' and 'identity', people believe that it is important for their lives, all that entertainment.

The pretentious ambition of DAE and her students in these past 'Edelkoort' decades is to be 'trendsetting leaders of society': to 'give form; to give 'content' to our lives'. This resulted in designers that are ambitious to become 'famous': ambitious to become an 'icon'; an 'idol', instead of ambitious to become 'the best designer'.

And yes: people in our society are blinded by 'fame'. More and more people are looking for idols and icons: partly due to press, television and internet. They want to look like them instead of looking like themselves. The effect nowadays is huge. People follow blindly and uncritically the icons and idols. 'Life is where DAEsign is' and Lidewij and her designers will tell us what our life is'. 'Trend' has become leading and trend forecasting became opportunism and arrogance: how 'involved' they suggest to be.

What is design? Design as a verb. Yes, there is a big world of 'serious design' but not at DAE. Some years ago I coached students at the department of industrial design at the TU/e [university of Eindhoven] and there I encountered a serious interest in what design is [as a verb] and why and how and for whom we should design what [things and services].

I encountered an interest in the responsibilities of designers towards society, and towards the world. At DAE I never see a vision on the verb 'design', and if so, it again is a caricature; a 'fairytale' about 'to design our lives'.

'How we design our lives'. I don't understand why everybody is so extremely enthusiastic about the work of Lidewij Edelkoort; and why many adore her, as it seems. Yes, she did make DAE 'famous' and 'leading'. Indeed: it 'infected' and influenced ideas about 'design things' all over the world. But the most important question is: are we happy with this world that has been created in the past decades? Are we happy with the development of 'DAEsign' in these decades? A world in which 'DAEsign' has become a 'caricature' and an overwhelming world of entertainment.

Who takes responsibility in this world? Not the industry, not politicians, not designers, so far. Isn't it time to take a step further? And become serious again about design [as a verb]? About our responsibility as designers and as industry and as politicians towards society and towards the earth?

Designers can be part of the future but only if they take responsibility for the complexity and the effects of their work. Giving form to all the artificial things and processes in the world. If they don't, they will probably become a caricature, the clowns or the fools of society.

Jâson Page

In professional sports, when a team full of young talent is struggling, fans placate themselves by repeating the phrase: "trust the process". They believe that the executives, coaches and players have a plan that will eventually bring their team to victory.

I believe the underlying issue of this DAE creative direction conversation is that, from the outside, it's hard to trust the process or see one altogether.

Sometimes, when things are not going well for an NBA team, a player like Michael Jordan can will his team to win. Since we are talking about a design world that doesn’t need more super stars, this scenario won’t work. If the talented DAE rookies of the design world want to win more, they’ll need a good coach

When it comes to good coaches, University of Connecticut’s Women’s Basketball coach Geno Auriemma may be the greatest of all time. He is clear about his coaching values which attracts a certain quality of athlete to his team, "…recruiting enthusiastic kids is harder than it’s ever been. Because every kid watches TV and they watch the NBA…and what they see is people just being really cool.

"So they think that’s how they’re going to act. And they haven’t even figured out which foot to use as a pivot foot and they’re going to act like they’re really good players. You see it all the time. So recruiting kids that are really upbeat and loving life and love the game and have this tremendous appreciation for when their teammates do something well, that’s hard. It’s really hard."

He is also clear about the team’s standards: "if your body language is bad, you will never get in the game. Ever. I don’t care how good you are."

He is aware that success comes when players play hard and have fun and that success is a team effort: "as a head coach you're probably only as good as your players and your assistants"” Along with his winning record, he is transparent about his coaching methods by studying other coaches and inviting them to learn from his team's practices. His open-source value driven coaching has not only created a dynasty as the best team in college basketball, it has entirely progressed the sport. We all need a Geno Auriemma.

In this DAE conversation, we try to add our two cents. We should have more connection to industry, humanistic values, programming, collaboration, less gallery design, poetry, boldness, more basketball references etc. So many "shoulds" but what should we do? I don’t think that it’s one individual’s job to know the answer.

As Sander suggests, I believe the DAE and industry would benefit from a broader debate about design education, to, as Lidewij describes, "…look at the far future to be able to prepare students on what they will need to be able to practice and how to enjoy the design processes. Even when they don’t know it yet themselves."

By reestablishing the school'a values within the field of design, a creative director could start the process within design education. A process that is clear and based on the collective advice of professionals like Lidewij might not be a plan which we all agree upon, but would be a direction we believe could succeed. I hope that this conversation will continue into a larger arena where everyone wins. I have hope that we will find a coach and trust the process.

Jules van den Langenberg

Dear all,

It is with great pleasure that I share with you a press release sent out today by Design Academy Eindhoven.

Joseph Grima has officially been announced as the new Creative Director and Chair of the Executive Board. The appointment will be effective from 1 September 2017.

After the publishing of the vacancy earlier this year, a self-initiated gathering took place involving academy alumni from the years 1996 to 2016. The purpose was to frame their knowledge and contribute to the process of selecting a new Creative Director. Our alumni gathering and the publication of an opinion piece on Dezeen instigated debate and raised awareness within the Selection Committee and Supervisory Board of the school.

Grima, a candidate initially put forward by the alumni, is a progressive critical figure with an international outlook. My hope is that he will be generously welcomed and supported to ensure him, the department heads and tutors are best able to move the Academy and its students towards a relevant future. Mostly I am thrilled that the Creative Director will remain Chair of the Executive Board meaning Design Academy Eindhoven remains a creative—rather than management—led institute.

However, the selection procedure made apparent that there is an urgent need of an official space or organ for Design Academy Eindhoven alumni to gather and frame their knowledge on a regular base. This yet to be established organ should make independent recommendations both on request and also unsolicited, and should focus on current developments concerning the school's curriculum, positioning and governance. The organisation currently only facilitates a dialogue between the students and administration through a system of student council meetings, potlucks and such. But no such structure exists yet for engaging with alumni. This seems problematic given that the Academy owes a major part of its reputation to graduates who always stay faithful in their communication, talking about how their education formed their thinking and fed their success.

To achieve this and contribute to the progressive development of the Academy on a long term, I also advocate the addition of a curated seat on the Supervisory Board for alternating alumni. The goal is to ensure that Design Academy Eindhoven alumni are included in the decision making process from a creative-based perspective. I will be pursuing this end with the Supervisory Board and the new Creative Director.

For now, I want to thank all involved in supporting the alumni and joining the discussion on the new Creative Director procedure.